The Venezuelan Referendum: an Exodus from Constituted Power

Commentary on the recent Venezuelan referendum, particularly among foreign observers, has turned into a rather tiresome to and fro between self-satisfied opponents of Chávez, who like to think that the Bolivarian revolution has been stopped in its tracks, and equally self-satisfied supporters, who think they have refuted the claims of Chávez's dictatorial tendencies.

The referendum has also been interpreted as a weathervane for the region's Left Turns as a whole.  With the Bolivian constitutional process also stymied, Lula quiescent, Bachelet unpopular, and the Kirchners apparently reinstating Peronist husband-and-wife politics as usual, have we reached the high water mark for Latin America's renascent left movements?

But in all this discussion, the central point has been lost: that the process of setting constitutions registers a balance of forces between constituent and constituted power.

Continue reading “The Venezuelan Referendum: an Exodus from Constituted Power”

Successful states, failed theories

In "The Failure of Political Theology", a review essay for Mute of Forrest Hylton's Evil Hour in Colombia and Achille Mbembe's On the Postcolony, Angela Mitropoulos (aka s0metim3s of the archive) skewers the assumptions of "failed state" theory.

She points out, on the one hand, that the notion of "failed states" presupposes the norm of the "successful" state as a more or less harmonious instance of the social contract at work.  This is a presupposition shared by liberalism and by Gramscian hegemony theory alike.  And obviously enough I thoroughly agree with her assessment of hegemony theory as no more than "a variant of social contract theory with Marxian pretensions."  Indeed, as Mitropoulos's reading of Hylton's book shows, if anything so-called progressives are more wedded to the social contract (and so to the repression of the state's founding and ongoing violences) than are liberals.  The (populist) demand to refound the state by means of an organic representation of subaltern classes is a ruse of the state's feigned self-cancellation.

Continue reading “Successful states, failed theories”

Truthiness and Foucault

For those of you unfamiliar with it, The Colbert Report is a fake news cable show hosted by the over the top, pseudo right wing commentator Stephen Colbert.  While it may be simply described as a parody of cable political talk shows (like The O'Reilly Factor) it offers an ironic look at contemporary political discourse.   What strikes me is that Colbert seems to be able to sum up the cultural and political divide with one word - Truthiness:

The A.V. Club: What's your take on the "truthiness" imbroglio that's tearing our country apart?

Stephen Colbert: Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word. I don't know whether it's a new thing, but it's certainly a current thing, in that it doesn't seem to matter what facts are. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?

Continue reading “Truthiness and Foucault”

Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11

NEW YORK—At a well-attended rally in front of his new Ground Zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11.

"My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise," said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. "As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all."

If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world's conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.

"Let us all remember how we felt on that day, with the world watching our every move, waiting on our every word," said Giuliani, flanked by several firefighters, ex-New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and Judith Nathan, his third wife. "With a campaign built on traditional 9/11 values, and with the help of every citizen who believes in the 9/11 dream, I want to make 9/11 great again."

Continue reading “Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11”

Impolitic

Reading back over the previous thread, Applebaum's piece - and wanting to think more about the relation between Jack Straw's remarks about the niqab being a "visible statement of separation and of difference" and the propriety/property nexus - it occurs to me that I've been meaning to post something here about Roberto Esposito's discussion of the impolitical.

Continue reading “Impolitic”

Questions Concerning Democracy

(1) Can democracy be thought independently of its adjectives?  That is, is there such a thing as "democracy as such"?  What is the significance of democracy in locutions such as "radical democracy," "liberal democracy," "parliamentary democracy," "representative democracy" and so on?  Can democracy only exist insofar as it is connected to these other things - representation, parliament, liberalism, radicalism?

(2) If democracy can be thought, how can it be thought?  That is, is democracy but a secularized political theology?  Is there a horizon of politics - any politics at all - beyond the theological?

(3) If democracy can be thought, can it be acted or is it always "coming" yet never arriving?  (An asymptotic politics, if you will.)  That is, is democracy merely a demand or an imaginary - perhaps the radical imaginary?

(4) Is democracy tied to, on the one hand, representation and, on the other hand, modernity or are there other forms that democracy can take - anti-modern, post-modern, or even pre-modern?

(5) If democracy is the horizon for all present politics, is there a politics that is anti-democratic or beyond democracy? Can a "progressive" politics be non- or anti-democratic?  How can a progressive politics articulate its demands in a non-language and in a non-thought?  (That is, a politics that can neither be spoken or thought because it is beyond the horizon of all politics.)

(6) Who, or what, is supposed to be democratic?

(7) In terms of "really existing" democracies, why do they tend to come about anti-democratically and tend to die democratically?

(democratic?) multitudes good and bad

The question regarding democracy is whether or not we can imagine an anti-democratic, or better non-democratic, politics.  In other words, is politics tied to democracy, or can it be imagined beyond democracy?

(A supplementary question might then be whether or not we can and should imagine a beyond to politics itself: a post-politics.)

The prevailing consensus would seem to be that politics is unimaginable without democracy, that it is only democracy that opens up the possibility for politics.  Without democracy, all we are left with is (variously, or perhaps in combination) power, administration, fanaticism, hatred.

Such is the view of Ernesto Laclau, but also, for instance, Jacques Rancière, who writes:

There is politics, the art and science of politics, because there is democracy.  Politics is encountered as already present in the factuality of democracy, in the very strangeness of the combination of words which joins the unassignable quantity of the demos to the indefinable action of kratein.  (On the Shores of Politics 94)

Rancière traces the mixed fortunes of both politics and democracy from its invention in Athens to the current "end of politics." 

Continue reading “(democratic?) multitudes good and bad”

Double Fantasy

In anticipation of the upcoming symposium on Schmitt, I found a short piece by Simon Critchley discussing the "logic of the political" as it is used by the Bush administration.  Many oberservors have noted the Schmittian influence on the current hegemons, but Critchley wishes to draw out a "crypto-Schmittianism" he sees at work.  Initially his description is rather traditional: The political is the sphere that deals with external security and internal order.  "The political is about the construction of an enemy in order to maintain the unity of the citizenry."  This construct actually produces a "double fantasy:" the fantasy of the enemy and the fantasy of the homeland.  "It is through the fantasy of the enemy that the fantasy of the homeland is constituted."

So far nothing very controversial.  But Critchley believes that the Bush administration is "crypto- Schmittian" because of its hypocrisy regarding its "moralization of political judgement."

Continue reading “Double Fantasy”

Blessing and Partage: No Pasarán; On Celan and Derrida

"No, I will limit myself here to the aporia (to the barred passage, no pasarán:  this is what aporia means)."

"...A date is mad, that is the truth.
And we are mad for dates.
For the ashes that dates are.  Celan knew one may praise or bless ashes.  Religion is not necessary for that.  Perhaps because a religion begins there, before religion, in the blessing of dates, of names, and of ashes..."

"A date always remains a sort of hypothesis, the support for a by definition unlimited number of projections of memory."-JD

One wonders what Derrida might have thought and said these past few weeks, about the re-casting of a certain enigmatic slogan in the streets of France.  One he always heard, after, as coming through Celan; one so clearly dear to his own heart.  Who could forget those passages?   But also, who would dare to write on them?

When Giovanna Borradori asked Derrida about September 11, and though I wonder if she realized it, what must have come first to his mind was another September, that of Celan's "Huhediblu"..."date of Nevermansday in September." 

Another Long Sundayan has already remarked, in suitably derisive manner, on the subject of this slogan–itself a "veritable knot of radical associations"–being recently adopted on the interweb by a group of impressively soporific blowhards, so we needn't dwell especially there.  Mark commented on the poem "Shibboleth", and later, Amie and I discussed "In Eins," which as Derrida notes is in fact a poem inside a poem, containing "Shibboleth", as it were, within.

No Pasarán.  A slogan, a pebble, with unusual powers, or something of what Nancy calls "partage":   to be capable of dividing, and at the same time blessing waters ("partition" and "partaking"...how often Derrida remarked on the theme of this...disastrous movement).  Also Shibboleth, watchword, at once demarcating a certain line or border, and a community, one marked by an act of crossing over.  A word Derrida also connects to necessary departure–departure from belonging, and in order to address the other.   A word, a pebble, like a tombstone, seeking to mark a date...

Continue reading “Blessing and Partage: No Pasarán; On Celan and Derrida”

Tronti blogweave

For your quick or leisurely perusal, the compilation of Long Sunday's recent symposium on Mario Tronti's "The Strategy of the Refusal", and some remarks.  The multitudinous, but alphabetised, contributions:

»Jon Beasley-Murray, The new barbarians
»Eric Beck, Minor refusals
»George Ciccariello-Maher, Class and subalternity
»Jodi Dean, Two questions on Tronti [follow-up]
»Roger Gathman Fantasy sites and the conquistadors of the planet
»Nate Holdren, Notes on "The Strategy of the Refusal"
»John Holloway, Adorno meets Tronti
»Doug Johnson, Intellectuals, the refusal of power, office workers' unions
»Brian Lamb, I would prefer not to bore you
»Craig McFarlane, Refusing to engage
»David McInerney, Tronti and Althusser
»Angela Mitropoulos, When will this labour end?
»Brett Neilson, Five theses on Tronti
»Stephen Squibb, Strategy of refusal of strategy
»Keith Tilford, How no can you go? Part I [Part II]

The preamble to the Long Sunday symposium, which includes links to related texts.  The relevant essay by Tronti is here, and a quick link to Long Sunday's Tronti folder. 

There were also a number of related posts elsewhere:  Destructive Creation, Northanger, Going Somewhere, Philosophy.com, pas au-delà, Attitude Adjustor. (Those are the most directly related to the discussion, though I wouldn't be surprised if I've missed some.)  And, not least, there is always the ongoing reading at Leggiamo Tronti.

My immense gratitude to all those who contributed their writings, readings and questions - those who simply took the time to read along with, and specifically those, such as Matt, who spent much time coding and uploading.

Already, Jon has the ball rolling for another reading, and I'm hoping that blogweaving continues, mutates and grows.  Not only because it creates a shared conversation that cuts across various blogs without converging along the one line, but also because - in ways that have yet to be fully explored - it marks an autonomy of writing, reading and research from the university that, particularly in times such as these, becomes an imperative.  Needless to say, what we read and write is related to how we read and write, no less than it is to the diificult questions of who, how and why this 'we' might appear, in that process.

Many thanks for the adventure.

When will this labour end?

Labouring against work. Mulling over the contributions and remarks made during the course of these readings, this is what strikes me as the first paradox, which is also the specific paradox of abstract labour and concrete labours that, in turn, characterises Marx's distinctive account of capitalism, that which brings all others paradoxes to the fore and makes them boil over. It's all about specificity, the difference and the cut. And is there anything more paradoxical than communism, a class politics that gears itself toward the abolition of class society? Operaismo - ie., workerism - against work. And Tronti's essay is nothing if not paradoxical.

Who would have guessed that a discussion of the refusal of work would result in so much toil?

Continue reading “When will this labour end?”

O Bailan Todos o No Bailan Nadie

Crossposted from Posthegemony, as this bears, dare I say it, on some earlier discussions concerning politics, performativity, and the New Left. But I'll let others draw whatever morals or conclusions they will.

I've mentioned Douglas Oliver's Diagram Poems (1979) before, following a discussion of Deleuze's concept of the diagram. And I remember somewhere, sometime reading an essay about, or simply mentioning, these poems--I had thought that it was in Marshall Blonsky's On Signs, but no. Then Oliver came up again in a conversation last year with my friend Carol Watts. So I felt I should track this book down.

Continue reading “O Bailan Todos o No Bailan Nadie”

refinery and rapport

"It occurs to me," Peter de Bolla writes in Art Matters, "that closing one's eyes the better to see is no bad thing" (52). Later, de Bolla will suggest we "close our ears" the better to hear (81). Aesthetic appreciation cannot be reduced to a single sense: it must be affective; it must be tactile. Indeed, the aesthetic is here defined precisely as an affective response to a work of art. And art? Art is any object that provokes such affect, since "the quality of being 'art' lies not, in any sense susceptible of description or analysis, in the object but in the response it elicits" (18).

Continue reading “refinery and rapport”

Learning to Love Again

In a previous discussion, Angela pointed to the comments of Wendy Brown.  Though I am not very familiar with her work, I found this great interview where she discusses the current state of leftist political projects.  What I found particularly intriguing was her treatment of "leftist melancholia," particularly as it relates to finding a "productive way of coming to terms with what we are all losing, and with what must be put into play as the affirmative prospects of those loses, or the affirmation that comes from that loss."

Timothy Rayner: "... It seems to me that the problem of the left at the moment is like the problem of the person who has lost the one who gave them a future, has lost that sense of future and has to learn how to love again. How does the left learn to love again, to rediscover another future?

Continue reading “Learning to Love Again”

Nation's Snowmen March Against Global Warming

With the current heated discussion regarding the difference between "symbolic politics" and "conventional politics" proper, I was reminded of the following fake news item from the Onion.  The Onion is very good at mimicking the sound and feel of how "real news" is presented for our consumption. What seems relevant for our purposes is how the notion of "protesting" is presented as absolutely ridiculous.  The suggestion seems to be that people march and complain for just about anything, with the obligatory appearance by Jesse Jackson added for good measure.  While I generally enjoy the humor (and do not take the Onion too seriously), it does seem to reflect a certain general attitude about politics, particularly of what now may be described as largely "symbolic" expressions of resistance.

Continue reading “Nation's Snowmen March Against Global Warming”

difference without apologies

It's a well-worn argument to suggest that the Left (whatever exactly that is) should spend more time learning from the Right (ditto), taking a few leaves out of the books of Reagan, Wall Street, Madison Avenue, the Southern Baptist Convention, Bush, the Republican Party, Harper, what or whomever have you...

Continue reading “difference without apologies”

Discriminating Tolerance

I have to thank Mark Kaplan for his recent link to a tribute for Herbert Marcuse.  Though he was celebrated by the New Left of the 1960's, he is someone whose work is largely ignored today.  What  I always admired about Marcuse was his forthright critique of both Stalinism and Capitalism, his intolerance of liberal tolerance, and his willingness to take political stands.  His prose style is that of the old German masters (of course he was a student of Heidegger), his analyses meticulously layed out in classic dialectical fashion.  Perhaps most unique was his ability to bring the tools of the early Heidegger (Being and Time) to bear on his readings of Marx and Hegel.  Though he is not alone in this attempt (Kojeve, Lacan, Derrida) his ability to transform this influence into specific political insight was remarkable. 

Continue reading “Discriminating Tolerance”

Public? Yes, please!

What is a public?  Jodi Dean lucidly suggests that since calls for the 'public' are voiced, well, in a pre-existing public, such calls are mostly political interventions for a certain kind of public, i.e., one more amenable to one's own orientation.  We might say, then, that these calls for a public are disengenuous, not actually concerned with achieving a true public.  (One can obviously place in this context Republican calls for a less `liberal biased' PBS.)

What, then, is a true public?  Is it the pre-existing public that allows for various factions to fight within it for their particular definition of a public?  The set that exists before the battle to hegemonize its definition and practice?  Does a true public only pre-exist the hegemonizing of the set through the rise of the master-signifier?

Or can we say that, only with the right master-signifier, the right political order, the true public actually comes into being? 

A true public is one without pigeon-holing, where one doesn't automatically place oneself in five seconds of speech.  It's one where you don't know what I am going to say next.  It's where I am not merely offering pre-digested soundbites.  Most of the blogosphere then has nothing to do with this true public; partisan hackery is but more TV (which is precisely why the TV networks can so easily report on this sector of the blogosphere), as are the endless ruminations on what one fed one's cat today.

The true public goes beyond your surprise at my words, my positioning.  I must be surprised myself.  As in the decisive act that overwhelms you, that preempts one's understanding of one's own actions, here I must myself be surprised by what comes from my `pen'.  Only after the fact, upon the establishment of a new order, can I come to understand what I have done.

But then the question is: does the new order in fact get created here, in this part of the blogosphere?  What could that mean?  No, yes, maybe new orders are constantly being tested.  We're playing at being vanishing mediators.  But playing with an enormous sense of responsibility, for the Other.  So maybe, then, Long Sunday is both the `true public' before the hegemonization of the very term 'public', and the Just `public' after the right hegemonization. 

Having it both ways?  Ah, the life of a vanishing mediator...

Zizek writes, in a sort of parallel:

The "political" dimension is... doubly inscribed: it is a moment of the social Whole, one among its sub-systems, and the very terrain in which the fate of the Whole is decided - in which the new Pact is designed and concluded.  (For they know not what they do, 193)